Laci Peterson

10 years later, and I'm still obsessed with this case, and I feel horrible for her friends and family.

DH is really into debating and the legality of things. He swears up and down that there wasn't enough evidence and that the jury convicted on pure circumstancial evidence.

We argue about this all of the time. He says he KNOWS the mother smurfer is guilty, but it's the job of the legal system to convict on pure facts and evidence.

What do you think? If you had to put your personal feelings aside and go strictly off of the evidence, would you have voted to convict him? If so... based on what evidence?

Quoting Man. Bear. Pig.:" 10 years later, and I'm still obsessed with this case, and I feel horrible for her friends and family. ... [snip!] ... feelings aside and go strictly off of the evidence, would you have voted to convict him? If so... based on what evidence?"

I know what you're saying although I'm not all that familiar with the facts of the Peterson case. I don't think there's any way around it without convicting innocent people, but cases like Casey Anthony make it seem so wrong.

I never thought much about the evidence but I can't believe its been ten years already.

Quoting Amelia Margaret:" I know what you're saying although I'm not all that familiar with the facts of the Peterson case. I ... [snip!] ... I don't think there's any way around it without convicting innocent people, but cases like Casey Anthony make it seem so wrong."

Well for one... there was the boat. The "new" fishing boat he had in storage that her relatives claimed she didnt know about. Yet her hair was found in it, and she was dumped in the water. DH says, well maybe she did know and see it, but didnt tell her family.

And there was a spot of blood on the bed. DH says... well she was pregnant. She could have had a bloody nose or even had some bleeding, etc. Those are some of the few things that are so circumstancial... and I do agree that it's not enough to convict.

However, my gut tells me that the jury made the right decision... I just wonder how they got to that conclusion....

The evidence wasn't enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt... IMO. But yeah, I think he did it.

Ya there was not enough evidence. Well know Casey Anthony is Guilty, but there was not enough evidence. OJ Simpson was Guilty, I have my opinion on why they voted not guilty  

how funny i just watched the movie last night when i couldnt sleep.

scott peterson is actually very handsome. its scary.

the whole case is smurfed up. i dont think he should have been convicted, and i REALLY dont think the death sentence was fair at all.

I agree.

I did not feel that they had enough evidence to convict and did so based purely on emotions and the fact that he came off like a douche bag.

Wow it's been 10 years?

I have no opinion, I was too young to follow the case.

I was also very young I read a book on it though! I'm going to read it again. All I know is the case is a very sad and tragic story. We all know he did it. But with him cheating multiple times, telling women he lost his wife before she was missing, the boat it all adds up to him. I think he deserves everything he gets.

Quoting NeverGiveUpHope:" I was also very young I read a book on it though! I'm going to read it again. All I know is the case ... [snip!] ... telling women he lost his wife before she was missing, the boat it all adds up to him. I think he deserves everything he gets."

That's the thing though... all the little things add up to where we know he did it... but... from a legal standpoint, there was no hardcore evidence where they could say.... beyond a reasonable doubt.... that he did it.

I can't believe it has already been ten years. Time flies.

And I'm 1000% sure he did it. Just like I'm certain that Casey Anthony had something to do with her daughter's death. Interesting how different the verdicts were!

He did it, but the evidence was circumstantial. His lawyer was an idiot and should have been able to get him off.